March 29, Richmond: E.W. Jackson, Candidate for the U.S. Senate, will be giving a brief speech at the Bell Tower across from the General Assembly Building in Richmond at 4PM today. Mr. Jackson will be thanking his volunteers for their successful efforts at collecting over 10,000 signature petitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia this year.

E.W. Jackson and his supporters will be collecting signatures in the Richmond area this morning and early afternoon.

If you would like to help E.W. Jackson's efforts today, or have any interview requests or questions, please contact Greg Aldridge at 757 373-4980.

End

About EW Jackson:

EW Jackson served in the United States Marine Corps, graduated from Harvard Law School and studied at Harvard Divinity School.

He practiced law for 15 years in Boston, and later devoted his full time to ministry. His first book, "Ten Commandments to an Extraordinary Life" was published in 2008. His second book, "America the Beautiful - Reflections of a Patriot Descended from Slaves" is scheduled for release on July 4th of this year.

He founded the Exodus Faith Ministries, a non-denominational church in Chesapeake VA. and is the founder of S.T.A.N.D. - Staying True to America's National Destiny, a national grassroots organization dedicated to restoring America's Judeo-Christian heritage and values. EW has been active in numerous businesses, political and spiritual endeavours throughout his life. His articles have been published nationally and internationally. EW has been seen and heard on FOX News' Your World With Neil Cavuto and Megyn Kelly's America Live, ABC's Good Morning America, ABC's Politically Incorrect, Hardball with Chris Matthews, C-Span's Washington Journal, ABC Radio Network, National Public Radio and many other media outlets. His work has been reported by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Mother Jones Magazine, World Magazine and other publications.

In recognition of his national ministry leadership, he was consecrated a Bishop in 1998. He and his wife have been married for forty years, have 3 children and have resided in Chesapeake for 13 years. Find out more about EW Jackson's campaign to Fix Washington Now by going to

March 29, Richmond: E.W. Jackson, Candidate for the U.S. Senate, will be giving a brief speech at the Bell Tower across from the General Assembly Building in Richmond at 4PM today. Mr. Jackson will be thanking his volunteers for their successful efforts at collecting over 10,000 signature petitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia this year.

E.W. Jackson and his supporters will be collecting signatures in the Richmond area this morning and early afternoon.

If you would like to help E.W. Jackson's efforts today, or have any interview requests or questions, please contact Greg Aldridge at 757 373-4980.

End

About EW Jackson:

EW Jackson served in the United States Marine Corps, graduated from Harvard Law School and studied at Harvard Divinity School.

He practiced law for 15 years in Boston, and later devoted his full time to ministry. His first book, "Ten Commandments to an Extraordinary Life" was published in 2008. His second book, "America the Beautiful - Reflections of a Patriot Descended from Slaves" is scheduled for release on July 4th of this year.

He founded the Exodus Faith Ministries, a non-denominational church in Chesapeake VA. and is the founder of S.T.A.N.D. - Staying True to America's National Destiny, a national grassroots organization dedicated to restoring America's Judeo-Christian heritage and values. EW has been active in numerous businesses, political and spiritual endeavours throughout his life. His articles have been published nationally and internationally. EW has been seen and heard on FOX News' Your World With Neil Cavuto and Megyn Kelly's America Live, ABC's Good Morning America, ABC's Politically Incorrect, Hardball with Chris Matthews, C-Span's Washington Journal, ABC Radio Network, National Public Radio and many other media outlets. His work has been reported by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Mother Jones Magazine, World Magazine and other publications.

In recognition of his national ministry leadership, he was consecrated a Bishop in 1998. He and his wife have been married for forty years, have 3 children and have resided in Chesapeake for 13 years. Find out more about EW Jackson's campaign to Fix Washington Now by going to

March 29, Richmond: E.W. Jackson, Candidate for the U.S. Senate, will be giving a brief speech at the Bell Tower across from the General Assembly Building in Richmond at 4PM today. Mr. Jackson will be thanking his volunteers for their successful efforts at collecting over 10,000 signature petitions in the Commonwealth of Virginia this year.

E.W. Jackson and his supporters will be collecting signatures in the Richmond area this morning and early afternoon.

If you would like to help E.W. Jackson's efforts today, or have any interview requests or questions, please contact Greg Aldridge at 757 373-4980.

End

About EW Jackson:

EW Jackson served in the United States Marine Corps, graduated from Harvard Law School and studied at Harvard Divinity School.

He practiced law for 15 years in Boston, and later devoted his full time to ministry. His first book, "Ten Commandments to an Extraordinary Life" was published in 2008. His second book, "America the Beautiful - Reflections of a Patriot Descended from Slaves" is scheduled for release on July 4th of this year.

He founded the Exodus Faith Ministries, a non-denominational church in Chesapeake VA. and is the founder of S.T.A.N.D. - Staying True to America's National Destiny, a national grassroots organization dedicated to restoring America's Judeo-Christian heritage and values. EW has been active in numerous businesses, political and spiritual endeavours throughout his life. His articles have been published nationally and internationally. EW has been seen and heard on FOX News' Your World With Neil Cavuto and Megyn Kelly's America Live, ABC's Good Morning America, ABC's Politically Incorrect, Hardball with Chris Matthews, C-Span's Washington Journal, ABC Radio Network, National Public Radio and many other media outlets. His work has been reported by the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, Mother Jones Magazine, World Magazine and other publications.

In recognition of his national ministry leadership, he was consecrated a Bishop in 1998. He and his wife have been married for forty years, have 3 children and have resided in Chesapeake for 13 years. Find out more about EW Jackson's campaign to Fix Washington Now by going to

Some of you may already get this, but I wanted to send it out in case you don’t. I also want to let you all know that we had a few Patriots from our Peninsula Patriots go to Washington yesterday. There were thousands from all of this country with American flags and signs, who were there to fight for our freedoms (what’s left of them). We had many great speakers, but more importantly the Tea Party is alive and well and the entire theme was to tell the Supreme Court NO to Obama care and take back the senate and White House this November!!!!! We need everyone to do something even if it is just telling others how detrimental it is to get involved and get out and vote. We must continue to educate everyone we come in contact with. We have and will lose a few battles, but we MUST win the war!!!!

Today was the second day of the three-day healthcare hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court, and as promised, I wanted to offer you my reflections on today's hearing.

Today the Court heard two hours of argument on the individual mandate - the heart of the federal health care law. It was exciting and modestly encouraging today in the courtroom.

Let me note at the outset that I am a litigator, and any good litigator will tell you their own stories of having been in court and having the feeling that things were going their way, only to see the court rule against them in the final order. So, while today went well for the limited government side, it always comes with the foregoing caveat born of experience.

The federal government went first in the person of Solicitor General Verelli. He was up for almost an hour, followed by Paul Clement for half an hour on behalf of the states, and Mike Carvin for half an hour on behalf of the NFIB.

Previous Compass readers will recall that this argument has two parts: the most important is the argument whether or not the mandate is permissible under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce; the federal government's fallback argument is that the penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government-mandated insurance is a tax for constitutional purposes (a position that Justice Scalia quietly called "extraordinary" at the end of the SG's argument).

Justice Kennedy spoke early and asked the SG if the federal government could order people into commerce in order to regulate them. And thus began more quasi-answers (like yesterday) by the federal government, as the SG said "that's not what's happening here."

Gradually the SG was directly confronted with the main challenge the feds had in court today, namely, to identify some limiting constitutional principle regarding federal power if the mandate was in fact constitutional.

The SG identified two circumstances that he said demonstrated the uniqueness of the health care (I'm going to say "HC" for short) market that would restrict 'mandates' from spreading to the other areas of the economy. First, he said that HC was unique because big, unaffordable costs could hit someone without insurance unexpectedly; and Second, those costs would be shifted to others if the person couldn't afford to pay those costs.

Somewhat amusingly, Justice Alito noted that burial costs were expensive and could hit one unexpectedly as well. He further noted that if he was too poor to pay his own costs and hadn't prepared for his burial, he would still certainly be buried, and those costs would in turn be shifted to others either by raising everyone else's burial costs if the buriers had to absorb those costs, or we'd all pay higher taxes if the government bore those costs.

The Chief Justice had his own examples handy.

The SG more or less simply insisted that HC was unique.

The old standbys of the fed's being able to order you to buy a car or broccoli came up too.

My strong sense is that the federal government failed to overcome its main hurdle of the day, namely, to articulate some limitation to federal power if the mandate was constitutional.

Justice Kennedy noted that the mandate was unique in light of its affirmative requirement of a citizen to purchase something, and that would appear to alter the relationship between the government and individuals in a "fundamental way." This is a powerful and deeply philosophical statement that I take great comfort in.

It is a point that we have been making repeatedly, and it goes deeper than just this piece of legislation. It is akin to my consistent comment that this case is not about HC, it's about liberty. And I believe the fundamental change Justice Kennedy was speaking of was one that dramatically reduces citizens' liberty.

At several points, Justice Kagan threw the SG what I thought were 'lifelines.' She seemed to advance the notion strongly that this is just ordinary regulation of a national market, and it's just a question of timing - of 'when' the feds apply regulation. Justice Kagan seemed to base her assertion on the notion that we are all in, or will be in, the HC market.

Justice Scalia roughly hammered on what market was actually being regulated. He noted to the SG that 'you are talking about HC, but you're regulating insurance.'

The Chief Justice played off that discussion a bit by noting that the feds were trying to solve the problems in the HC market by regulating insurance. Thus, even if the HC market were unique, what's to stop the feds from coming back later with some other mandate that was not related to insurance but that was rationalized as helping out with the HC problem?

The Chief Justice also noted wryly that if the Court allows the mandate, 'you'll just be back with something else that's unique' later.

Justice Breyer referred to the opinion of former Scalia clerk and now 6th Circuit Judge Sutton who ruled the mandate constitutional, and noted his two pages of alleged government compulsions. To which Mike Carvin simply said 'none of them apply.'

Never before has the federal government ordered us to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce.

Justice Breyer also played off one of Justice Kennedy's exchanges with the SG, and pressed the SG to concede that if they could compel this under the commerce clause, then the feds could compel other purchases too. This revealed one of the numerous difficulties of the federal position. Justice Breyer's tone strongly suggested he thought the SG's position should be that the feds could order us all to make government-directed purchases under the commerce power, but the SG knew that would be a deep hole with many of the Justices and he wouldn't go there.

The SG's problem is that Justice Breyer was actually pushing him toward a much more consistent position. And it was the logical position for the SG, but it didn't suit his more limited goals in this case - goals that have left him desperately trying to find some way to treat insurance for health care as totally unique from everything else on earth.

He simply did not pull it off, and while Justice Breyer may vote his way, I don't think Justice Breyer will agree with the SG's argument re the mandate.

The Justices also heard argument about whether the the penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government-mandated health care was a tax. There was much less discussion of this, frankly, because I think it is seen as a far-fetched argument... I would call it radical.

If all the feds have to do to bring a directive under the taxing power is fine you if you fail to do it, then they can order you to do anything that doesn't conflict with some other constitutional protection.

That argument is going nowhere.

As a final sign that the tax argument is going nowhere, Justice Ginsberg reiterated her statement from yesterday that taxes are designed to raise revenues, but penalties are to compel behavior, and if the penalty works perfectly (i.e., everyone buys the health insurance), the penalty will raise no revenue at all. I.e., there's no way it's a tax.

No Justice gave any particular indication that they were ready to defend the penalty=tax position.

Thus my conclusion that it's going nowhere.

I left court today happier than when I arrived.

Tomorrow morning, the Court will hear argument on the severability of the individual mandate (i.e., the remedy if the mandate is found unconstitutional); and tomorrow afternoon they will hear the 4th and final argument regarding whether the massive medicaid burdens foisted on the states under the health care law are so onerous as to amount to unconstitutional coercion by the feds of the states under the spending power.

Unconstitutional coercion of the states using the spending power has never been found to exist by the Court, but if this isn't the case for it, I don't know what is.

And please encourage others to sign up for The Compass. We are trying to get over 5,000 new subscribers this week, and we're well on our way, but we need your help. So, please forward this on to others and encourage them to go to www.Cuccinelli.com to sign up for themselves!

Inside the April Issue of Townhall Magazine

The GOP primary race continues, but for how long and at what price? Guy Benson looks at the delegate race as it progresses into April in this month's Wire section.

Townhall Magazine's April issue also includes:

Did you know the IRS allows clarinet lessons, if they are used to correct a dental problem some children have, to be written off as a medical expense? Discover more of the most outrageous tax loopholes in America.

Get a behind-the-scenes look at what happened during one of the biggest legislative battles of 2012: the defeat of SOPA.

A ruined nation: will the U.S. continue to turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of North Korea being a U.N. member?

Fresh. Intelligent. Conservative. -- Townhall Magazine.

Keep up with Townhall Magazine on Facebook and Twitter!

Townhall Magazine is the monthly news and opinion journal from the same team of right-thinking reporters, opinions makers, insiders and political leaders conservatives have trusted for 15 years. It's the place to find interviews with and profiles and writings of some of your favorite conservatives, including Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Thomas Sowell, Newt Gingrich, Jonah Goldberg, Wayne LaPierre, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Fred Thompson, & many more.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Today was the third and final day of the three-day healthcare hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court, and as promised, I wanted to offer you my reflections on today's hearing.

Today's arguments were divided into two separate sessions.The Court heard arguments regarding severability first.In a separate session, the Court heard the States' claim that PPACA's Medicaid expansion represented unconstitutional coercion of the States under the spending power of the constitution.I will address each session in turn.

SEVERABILITY

As those of you who have been following the various challenges know, the severability issue will only come into play if the Court finds a portion of the law unconstitutional.If the Court finds that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it will strike that portion of the law.When it does so, the Court must also determine if the remainder of the law (or at least certain pieces of it) must also be struck down.To the extent that the Court allows other portions of the law to stand, they are said to have "severed" the unconstitutional portion of the law from what it lets stand as law.

Interestingly, as it did regarding the AIA on Monday, the Court did not just hear from lawyers representing the States and the federal government.The Court appointed a lawyer to argue that if the individual mandate is struck down the rest of the law should be allowed to continue in full force and effect.

The appointment of a lawyer to make this argument was necessary because the federal government has made a significant concession regarding severability.The federal government conceded in the all of the cases prior to the Supreme Court that, if the mandate were held unconstitutional, PPACA's provisions regarding community rating and guaranteed issue (essentially that the insurance companies have to insure someone no matter what problems they have or what risks they face) must also fall because they cannot work without the individual mandate. Interestingly, the first time the federal government made this concession was in our case here in Virginia.

So there were three basic positions argued.The States argued that individual mandate is so central to the law that the whole law must be struck down if the mandate is unconstitutional.The federal government argued that, if the mandate is unconstitutional, the mandate and the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions must be struck down, but the rest of the law may stand.Finally, Mr. Farr, the lawyer appointed by the Court, argued that, if the mandate is unconstitutional, only the mandate should be struck down.

Monday's argument about the Anti-Injunction Act was about legal procedure.Tuesday was about constitutional theory and the relationship between citizens and the federal government.Today'sarguments regarding severability were all about practical, real world effects.If the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, what happens next?What's the proper remedy?

From the beginning, it was clear that the justices were interested in the practical effect of striking down the mandate.

The best example of a justice being concerned with the practical effect of a ruling may have been Justice Kagan, who noted that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, but the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions are left in place, that creates a large problem. She said: "Once you say that the insurance companies have to cover all of the sick people and all of the old people, the rates climb. More and more young people and healthy people say, why should we participate, we can just get it later when we get sick. So they leave the market, the rates go up further, more people leave the market, and the whole system crashes and burns, becomes unsustainable."

While it's always dicey to try and guess the outcome from questions at oral argument, all of the justices who asked questions seemed to have this same basic concern over just striking the mandate and leaving the rest of the law in place.However, there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to whether that meant that, in addition to the mandate, just the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions should be struck down or whether the whole law should be struck down.

In asking their questions about severability, all of the justices agreed that the Court must respect Congressional prerogatives, but their questions suggested two verydifferent views of how best to do that.

Some of the justices, particularly Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg, seemed to suggest that the best way to show respect to Congress was to only strike limited portions of PPACA and nothing else.

Others suggested that, to truly show deference to Congress, the Court would need to strike the entire law because, to do otherwise, would be to leave Congress with a law they never passed or even intended to pass. Justice Kennedy said that if the Court struck down the mandate, but left the rest of the law standing, "we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than . . . striking the whole."

Justice Scalia seemed to echo this view, stating that "My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone. That enables Congress. . . . to do what it wants . . . .It seems to me it reduces our options the most and increases Congress's the most."

Justice Scalia also pointed out that the severability issue in this case was unlike any case that had come before the Court previously.He noted that the previous severability cases did not deal with the primary purposes of a statute, but generally, dealt with ancillary issues.However, he said that there is no case where the Court has found the "heart" of a law unconstitutional and left the remainder standing, stating: "This is really a case of first impression. I don't know another case where we have been confronted . . . with this decision."

I caution everyone not to read too much into the questions that justices asked about severabilityin trying to predict whether or not the Court is likely to find the individual mandate unconstitutional.In its opinion, the Court will only reach the issue of severability if some portion of the law is held to be unconstitutional.Thus, all of the questions about severability necessarily assumed that some provision of the law will be found unconstitutional.So, you can't assume that a justice is leaning towards striking down the law simply because of the way he or she asked a question about severability.

MEDICAID COERCION

Today's second session dealt with the States' Medicaid coercion argument. The argument is that because States are so heavily invested in the Medicaid program they are forced or "coerced" to accept the Medicaid expansion in PPACA because, if they do not, Secretary Sebelius could stop them from receiving any Medicaid funds from the federal government, causing financial ruin for the States.

The coercion theory is grounded in a few Supreme Court cases, most recently South Dakota v. Dole, which was decided in the 1980s. The issue in that case was the federal government conditioning the States receiving a small portion (7 percent) of the federal highway dollars that they would otherwise receive on States raising their legal drinking age to 21. The Court held that this was a proper use of Congress's spending power because the States could keep their drinking age at 18 if they were willing to forego the federal money.

However, in issuing its decision, the Court noted that seven percent of the federal highway money was a relatively small amount.The Court, relying on cases dating back to the 1930s, noted that there might be a situation where the amount of money involved was so large that the States would be forced into accepting the conditions.If such a situation ever arose, the Court indicated that the law might constitute unconstitutional coercion of the States.

While the theory of unconstitutional coercion is well known, the modern Court has never found a situation where it actually existed. Today's argument was really about whether such a case could ever exist or is the theory of unconstitutional coercion an academic theory that will never have practical effect.

The questions from the justices pretty much covered all of the possibilities.Some of the justices clearly suggested that so long as the States have the right to refuse the federal money, they are not being coerced.Others seemed to suggest with their questions that, given how much States have come to depend on federal Medicaid dollars, we may have finally found a case where the coercion threshold had been met.

Justice Scalia asked the Solicitor General if the federal government could identify even a hypothetical example of what would constitute unconstitutional coercion. Citing a 1911 case about the location of Oklahoma's state capital, the Solicitor General indicated that Congress could not condition the receipt of federal funds on a State moving its capital.Wow.

Chief Justice Roberts also pressed the federal government on the coercion question, seeking examples of what would go too far.However, he was also critical of the States' position, noting that, to some extent, the States reliance on Medicaid is a problem of their own making.Justice Roberts said: "Well, why isn't that a consequence of how willing [the States] have been since the New Deal to take the Federal government's money? And it seems to me that [the States] have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal government has done, they should not be surprised that the Federal government having . . . tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal government isn't going to start pulling them."Again, wow.But this one hurts in part because of the truth in it.

For me, one of the most significant comments on the Medicaid issue came from Justice Alito. As those of you who have followed our efforts from the beginning know, I have repeatedly said that this case is not about health care, it's about liberty. The decision in this case will determine whether federalism - a bulwark of liberty - survives as a tool to preserve our liberty.While noting that the federal government might be correct in its argument, Justice Alito said that, if Congress can condition the receipt of all federal funds on accepting all federal strings no matter what those strings are, "then there is nothing left of federalism."

As I have said before, it is risky to try and guess the outcome based on the questions asked at oral argument (even three days worth of oral argument).The three days of argument have generated lots of things to think about, and I will be reflecting on all of it over the next few days. Once I have chewed on these last three days, I will probably write another Compass giving you my impressions of the whole week taken together.

While I still make no predictions on what the Court is likely to do, I have been cautiously optimistic since we filed the first challenge to PPACA. This week has left me more encouraged about our prospects then I have been to date.I still believe that the positions we have taken, and that our sister States have taken, are consistent with the Constitution and the foundational principles of this great nation.

I'll write on this subject again, but now we have three months to wait until we see the final order.

Finally, please, once again, encourage others to sign up for The Compass.We are trying to get over 5,000 new subscribers this week, and we're well on our way, but we need your help.So, please forward this on to others and encourage them to go to www.Cuccinelli.com to sign up for themselves!